[rayiner]

I think one fact that goes ignored is that McD's whole MO is selling coffee to people in cars, a higher risk situation. I think the reasonable temperature to serve coffee in that situation isn't the same as for when you're in a cafe.

[crusso]

I dare say that if you spilled even 130F coffee in your lap while driving down the freeway, you could easily cause a fatal accident.

As a society, do we expect McDonalds to make that decision for us and just not sell coffee in the drive-thru?

[andrewguenther]

But you're posing a theoretical situation completely different than the one actually involved in the case. McDonalds was grossly negligent in serving their coffee at a temperature well above necessary, hotter than anyone in the industry. Starbucks won't even brew your coffee that hot (if you ask for anything over 180 degrees they may say yes, but won't actually do it).

Much of these cases is based on reasonable expectation. Would you ever expect your coffee to be so hot that it could melt your skin? No.

[Crito]

If that coffee had been 180F, the outcome would have been the same. Perhaps slightly less tissue damage, but we would still be talking about third degree burns.

It think it is illuminating that so many people believe that Mcdonalds no longer serves their coffee that hot, but in reality, the only changes they have made in response to that lawsuit are changing their packaging, including adding warning labels. If you go to Mcdonalds and buy some coffee today, it could be just as hot as the coffee that that woman bought.

So to address this question:

> "Would you ever expect your coffee to be so hot that it could melt your skin? No."

You really should, because it still is!